Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[BDBoop]

Gays want gay marriage for one thing and for one thing only, to further legitimatize their sinful lifestyle, not because of so called equal rights. Those that do it are doomed with them.

Riiiiight. And that's why so many gays and lesbians between 50 and 95 are first in line.

What does age have to do with anything? Sin is sin.

Yup. Here's yours.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

By the same measure with which you judge, you will be judged.

He that is without sin, cast the first stone.

 

[logical4u]

That isn't "marriage" (at least as how it has been defined for EONS). It is a legal partnership. I have stated that I have no objection to "legal partnerships". I have an objection to re-defining a word to please a small percentage that will do nothing to improve communication. It will cause more confusion (read more expensive legal documents, higher government fees, more paperwork to "clarify" the differences in "marriages" without actually saying that is what is being done", more stress, more medical problems brought on by more stress, etc, etc, etc).

Marriage is a legal construct, administered by the states. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal access to all law, including marriage, regardless of class or status.

No one cares what you do or don’t object to, all that matters is the law; ‘legal partnerships’ is not marriage, it doesn’t have the same legal framework as marriage. Unless everyone were subject to ‘legal partnerships,’ such contrivances would remain un-Constitutional.

The homosexual terrorists are just "starting" with the re-definition of "marriage". Now they are actively placing homosexual agenda teachings in school. How is that "equal"? Where do schools "teach" that heterosexual is normal and important in society (Hint, it isn't and never will be because you can't promote heterosexuality AND homosexuality as "normal"). How is that equal?

There are no homosexual ‘terrorists,’ there is no homosexual ‘agenda.’ Homosexuality is not being taught in schools. To paraphrase Plyler, a homosexual is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term…guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

However much you may hate homosexuals, however ignorant you may be of the law, the simple fact remains that homosexuals are human beings, persons entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws. You can not deny them their humanity, and may not discriminate against them accordingly.

Please quote me where I displayed "hatred" for homosexuals.
Yes, homosexuality is being taught in schools, do an internet search on it.
Marriage definition has been in place for eons. There is no confusion when speaking of marriage. When homosexuals force the re-definition, there will be confusion and expenses for all community, state and federal governments, that will require more documentation, more information about each person to be kept on file. Legal partnership could ensure that same sex couples are legally, equal, without punishing the rest of society.
Before you go off into: that isn't the saaaaaame thiiiiing whine. Men and women are not re-defined as all men or all women. It would make society a mess, and yet, under the law, they are equal.
Also, homosexuals have the same "rights" to marry as heterosexuals. They don't like the rules and want to change the laws (that would give them exceptions, not equality).
What class are homosexuals?
What status are homosexuals?
How does that differ from any other activity that is "chosen"?
The 14th Amendment says nothing, nothing about sexual preference.

Satan is the great deceiver. There is nothing new here. Deception, deception, deception.

 

[logical4u]

Marriage is spiritual, the joining of a woman and man, I don't want it redefined for people based on their sexual behavior, those folk need to find their own special bonding ceremony.

Marriage is a legal contract, whether you want it ‘redefined’ or not is immaterial, as is your hate toward homosexuals. As persons they’re entitled access to all laws, including marriage.

I don't care how man views marriage I'm all about what God views it as, gay can be "married" according to man's laws, but they will *NEVER* be joined in love in the site of God.

Which is why the Framers wisely ensured the separation of church and State.

man has already legalized certain sinful behaviors, but the strong in Christ will never bow to such laws.

If government officials they will if legally compelled to do so by a court.

Sounds like you are trying to "force" acceptance of homosexual lifestyle. I thought all you homosexual supporters were against having a "lifestyle" forced on you.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Heterosexuals have their behaviors limited in the military also. If you are in the military, your rights are not the same as a civilian's rights. Look it up.

And far fewer than 4% of our population is in the military. We're not talking about the UCMJ here. We're talking about why American citizens who have committed no crime, are consenting adults and pay their taxes, why should those people be denied access to the benefits, protections and ease of access that the marriage license affords. What could be the reason gay people are actively discriminated against by legislation.

There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from being married as the majority of the population is. They want "special rights" (read above the law). Apparently where the law is being changed, it is for "same sex", no mention of homosexual (I thought this was all about equality). It is about scamming the system and mocking traditional marriage.

Hello? Homosexuals aren't interested in marrying someone of the opposite sex just because it's legal.

It is wrong to marry someone you don't genuinely love. Homosexuals marrying women they don't love (which according to you, is their "equal" right) is mocking traditional marriage.

Marrying the person you love and are faithful to, honors traditional marriage.

Look at the lesbian couple in the news, one in her seventies, the other in her eighties. They've been together over twenty years. This isn't "scamming the system", at all.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Marriage is spiritual, the joining of a woman and man, I don't want it redefined for people based on their sexual behavior, those folk need to find their own special bonding ceremony.

Marriage is a legal contract, whether you want it ‘redefined’ or not is immaterial, as is your hate toward homosexuals. As persons they’re entitled access to all laws, including marriage.


Which is why the Framers wisely ensured the separation of church and State.

man has already legalized certain sinful behaviors, but the strong in Christ will never bow to such laws.

If government officials they will if legally compelled to do so by a court.

Sounds like you are trying to "force" acceptance of homosexual lifestyle. I thought all you homosexual supporters were against having a "lifestyle" forced on you.

Nope. No one can force YOU to accept gays. You are free to be biased against them.

The NY marriage law allows them to marry.

Being gay isn't a lifestyle, it's what you are or aren't. Heterosexuality isn't a lifestyle either.

 

[logical4u]

Bass is entitled to his own belief about marriage.

Bass is not entitled to continue to inflict that on us.

Sure he is. That's what democracy is all about, inflicting the view of the majority on the minority.

Yet polls showed that the majority of New Yorkers supported passage of the legislation granting Civil Marriage to same-sex couples.

You should be happy that the majority view prevailed.



>>>>

Then why is the state being sued for not following proceedure? More deception?

 

[Sky Dancer]

That isn't "marriage" (at least as how it has been defined for EONS). It is a legal partnership. I have stated that I have no objection to "legal partnerships". I have an objection to re-defining a word to please a small percentage that will do nothing to improve communication. It will cause more confusion (read more expensive legal documents, higher government fees, more paperwork to "clarify" the differences in "marriages" without actually saying that is what is being done", more stress, more medical problems brought on by more stress, etc, etc, etc).

Marriage is a legal construct, administered by the states. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal access to all law, including marriage, regardless of class or status.

No one cares what you do or don’t object to, all that matters is the law; ‘legal partnerships’ is not marriage, it doesn’t have the same legal framework as marriage. Unless everyone were subject to ‘legal partnerships,’ such contrivances would remain un-Constitutional.

The homosexual terrorists are just "starting" with the re-definition of "marriage". Now they are actively placing homosexual agenda teachings in school. How is that "equal"? Where do schools "teach" that heterosexual is normal and important in society (Hint, it isn't and never will be because you can't promote heterosexuality AND homosexuality as "normal"). How is that equal?

There are no homosexual ‘terrorists,’ there is no homosexual ‘agenda.’ Homosexuality is not being taught in schools. To paraphrase Plyler, a homosexual is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term…guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

However much you may hate homosexuals, however ignorant you may be of the law, the simple fact remains that homosexuals are human beings, persons entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws. You can not deny them their humanity, and may not discriminate against them accordingly.

Please quote me where I displayed "hatred" for homosexuals.
Yes, homosexuality is being taught in schools, do an internet search on it.
Marriage definition has been in place for eons. There is no confusion when speaking of marriage. When homosexuals force the re-definition, there will be confusion and expenses for all community, state and federal governments, that will require more documentation, more information about each person to be kept on file. Legal partnership could ensure that same sex couples are legally, equal, without punishing the rest of society.
Before you go off into: that isn't the saaaaaame thiiiiing whine. Men and women are not re-defined as all men or all women. It would make society a mess, and yet, under the law, they are equal.
Also, homosexuals have the same "rights" to marry as heterosexuals. They don't like the rules and want to change the laws (that would give them exceptions, not equality).
What class are homosexuals?
What status are homosexuals?
How does that differ from any other activity that is "chosen"?
The 14th Amendment says nothing, nothing about sexual preference.

Satan is the great deceiver. There is nothing new here. Deception, deception, deception.

Homosexuality isn't being "taught in the schools". Tolerance is being taught in the schools. The facts are being taught in the schools. Facts are, some of the kids going to school have gay parents. Some of the kids in the school are gay.

It's a way to stop bullying.

You cannot choose to be heterosexual, or homosexual. It's just what you are.

 

[logical4u]

Universal marriage is inevitable. End of story.

We already have universal marriage.

Not if I want to marry a woman, we don't. You have a right I don't have.

See how that works?

Men and women are equal under the law. If you are a woman, you cannot claim you are a man and if you are a man, you cannot claim you are a woman (unless you are being deceptive). Men and women are not the same. Homosexuals in a legal partnership is not the same thing as a traditional marriage (unless you are being deceptive).
See how that works?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dictionaries also say that "gay" is "happy". How many people use that definition?
Yes, "fewer hurdles for homosexual couples to leap through" and a nightmare of hurdles for everyone else. Will you say you are married or single when a job is looking for someone "unattached" to travel for the company and willing to take risks? Will you be honest when filling out company paperwork as you are being hired, or will you wait until you think the company has enough resources invested where you will not be "released" when they discover your true "self". How many questions do you think will be added to job applications for small businesses that pay health insurance to discover if you are a homosexual male that is claiming a marriage dependent (read way higher insurance costs)? How many businesses that deal with the public will go thru even more intensive "screenings" for employees, so they don't get a homosexual "self-expressionist" (after they are hired of course), that wants to dress in drag and chase away traditional families (still the main customers for many businesses)? How many churches will be sued (read community loses a support/shelter) because they refuse to hire out to homosexual faux ceremonies? How many of those homosexuals that will be suing anyone that doesn't give them their respect they imagine they are due will be willing to put up the resources to replace those that will be put out of business, simply for disagreeing with the homosexual agenda?

And for the umpteenth time, that some in society may find a minority exercising its Constitutional rights ‘burdensome’ doesn’t justify preempting those very rights.

Yet another socialist/communist/liberal/islamist/elitist that wants to say how things should be, and want to implement something that does not work in society, without ever considering how they will "fix it" if it doesn't work.

No one is saying ‘how things should be,’ merely explaining case law as it exists now.

Please, list the examples where ..."families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies".
The only place this works is as a novelty (a freak show where tourist go and pretend they understand) or when there are not enough men or women (like after a war), and then more of community support than sexual support. There was an article today about Boystown having problems as a "homosexual" community.
If homosexual "couples" are so great, why don't they have their own communities?

This is too idiotic for a serious response. But for the record:

Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a). Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents (Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999). However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers (Patterson, 2004b). Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

APA Policy Statement: Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children

 

[logical4u]

Your ass is showing.

As to your post to the other poster - the will of the many should never eradicate the rights of the few.

The few have not had their rights eradicated. They just don't have legal permission to play "house", and they are upset and want to harm the "rights" of the many for them to get an "exception" (read, the few, elevated above, the many).

There is no law prohibiting people from living together. Homosexuals have the same rights any "heterosexual couple" has when "living together". Marriage is a "status". One that has the encouragement of both families (in most cases), the community, and the country. Over 70% of children are made the "green" way between married people. Single parents, and dysfunctional families are shown to cause mental problems for the children raised in their households (read harmful to society).

 

[logical4u]

Partisan activity is required to overcome the lame stream far right.

Since 70% of young Americans support universal marriage, the ideas of their parents and grandparents will soon be of the past. Rightly so.

The same methods that Stalin, and Hitler, and Castro used to propel themselves to power: young people, your parents know nothing (it doesn't matter that they have 30+ years of experience at life). We will show them how we waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant it. If they do not agree, we will force them. Only, afterwards did they find out that 'force' meant the murder of millions of people, simply because they disagreed with the "dear leader".

 

[logical4u]

Your ass is showing.

As to your post to the other poster - the will of the many should never eradicate the rights of the few.

No one has a right to marry someone of the same sex.

No One has the "right" to marry. It is an "honor". Please list those "honorable" homosexuals (you know ones that do not deceive).

 

[logical4u]

Gays are a bunch of nuts.... You get a few together and its like "lord of the flies."

If gays were more humble they'd be respected a lot more.

The majority of republicans have no problem with homosexuality - gays just happen to be obnoxious partisan activists.

So the Republican position is that they are OK with gays as long as they remain in the closet

The conservative position: don't make laws without knowing the consequences. This will end up being another GIANT (yes, related to the nephelim) handout by the gov't that will be unsustainable.

 

[logical4u]

Looks like they are two for two

They have always had a moral right to marry, now they have a legal right too

Every civilization in the history of the Earth disagrees.

Most of Europe and Canada doesn't

Are those civilizations on the ascendency or the descendencey? How much longer do you think the European Union will last? Many in Europe are rejecting the 'morals' of "fun island" and realizing their future is in serious danger, to the point of trying to turn their gov't back conservative.

 

[logical4u]

Partisan activity is required to overcome the lame stream far right.

Since 70% of young Americans support universal marriage, the ideas of their parents and grandparents will soon be of the past. Rightly so.

All that shows is the effects of government brainwashing in the government schools.

Since promotion of homosexual activity isn't some thing that has received either wide spread or long term exposure in public schools...

Your correlation would be specious.

The polls show that the older people get the more they oppose gay marriage.

Would you attribute that to long term brainwashing by religious institutions considering there would be a much better correlation between religiouis views and views on homosexuals?


>>>>

I remember the propoganda, the "sexual revolution". It was about losing morality (among other things). Homosexuality was the next logical step after convincing children that sexuality would be better shared with multiple partners. If I live long enough, orgies and animals will be encouraged, because the leftists/socialist/communists/islamists will not think society is depraved enough. The Obamacare is already "promoting" the ideas from Brave New World, where women are made sterile, by declaring birth control will be free. Haven't they watched Sci Fi, and know that there could be a world with very few children after you play around with that stuff?

Religious institutions have little to do with it. The Bible is a book of spiritual growth. It tells those that want to "comprehend" that sin will lead to darkness and death. Fighting sin and trying to live according to the Lord's laws will bring you to Yeshua, and eternal life in His world of love. His world is not this world. You have a choice, and from your posts, your choice is a walk to the "pit".

 

[logical4u]

I was mocking the post. Geez, brains seem to be a rare commodity here.

Maybe you're just a shitty mocker.

It's a word for word post. How the hell could you miss it? Need a disclaimer or just a brain?

Leftists don't have a sense of humor.

 

[rightwinger]

Gays are a bunch of nuts.... You get a few together and its like "lord of the flies."

If gays were more humble they'd be respected a lot more.

The majority of republicans have no problem with homosexuality - gays just happen to be obnoxious partisan activists.

So the Republican position is that they are OK with gays as long as they remain in the closet

The conservative position: don't make laws without knowing the consequences. This will end up being another GIANT (yes, related to the nephelim) handout by the gov't that will be unsustainable.

Oh really?

How does two people who are in love getting married impact you?

 

[logical4u]

I don't hate gays I just will not support anything that goes against the stated beliefs I see in the Bible,

Right, you don't hate people, you're just intolerant and wish to impose your religious beliefs on others through government.


I guess that's a nice way to phrase your hatred of those different than you.

you cannot expect people throw away their religion for what a man deems as acceptable

.
No one is asking you to through away your religion dipshit.

Let the gays have civil unions since civil unions are of man, but leave marriage alone which is of God.

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything about God in my marriage contract.

When you say your "vows", who do you think you are "vowing" to?

 

[logical4u]

You are allowed to hold whatever religious beliefs you have about gays and about marriage. What you don't have a right to is insist that government affirm your beliefs and institute different treatment for Americans you do not approve of

You still don't understand do you. Marriage is a sacred church act that has been adopted by government when it should be separate and done by churches, this has nothing to do with beliefs, if gays want all the same legal and property rights as a marriage they can be got union a civil union since civil unions are civil and not sacred.

Churches have the right to deny religious marriage to anyone they want. They do it all the time. However, they do not have a monopoly on the term marriage. If the government is going to accept a binding partnership between two people and call it marriage, they have to apply the terms and benefits equally to all people. That is in the 14th Amendment

Either marriage for all or civil union for all.....Its your choice

Where is "sexual preference" listed in the fourteenth Amendment???????????

 

[logical4u]

How about everyone can have civil unions? When you set one thing up for one group of people and something else for another group, you get into that pesky little thing called "separate but equal". I don't know if you realize this, but we tried separate but equal before. It didn't work.

Currently, civil unions do not grant anywhere NEAR the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with legal, civil marriage.

What is the difference between a Civil Union and Marriage?

Again I will ask, what Constitutional right of yours is infringed upon when gays and lesbians LEGALLY marry?

No constitutional right is infringed upon if you marry a goat either. What's your point?

And how do you get that goat to consent and say "I do"???? I really want to know.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaa